Thorin, Azog, the Monsters and the Critics
So I finished the Hobbit today! Have you guys ever stopped to marvel that a book like that - a fairy tale for children and High Fantasy at its best - includes both Geopolitical Consequences and the Common Cold? When do you ever see disease in fiction that isn't plague? Give me an example of "and then this character was a bit under the weather for a while but got better eventually." Also it's a great opportunity for Tolkien to have Fun With Phonetics - "Thag you very buch!" :) (man I love Tolkien. We tend to be dorks in exactly the same way).
But getting on to the Geopolitical Ramifications, the fact that the Battle of Five Armies happens at all is kind of amazing. The story doesn't end with the killing of the Dragon. And then the Good Guys almost come to blows over... well, that's a really good question.
They're playing Thorin so magnificently that I've heard some comments about how they're going to slowly villainize him over the third part to allow the Battle of Five Armies to happen. I maintain, however, that they won't need to. In the book Thorin comes under the Dragon-spell, but in the larger context I don't think that's a terribly good idea (and wholly unnecessary). It is important, I think, that Thorin is unpossessed of the Ring of Thror. But a lot of the reason he gives for refusing Bard's parlay is the presence of the Elven-host. All that we need for things to go south, as it were, is Thorin's refusal to treat with Elves. Which is already well-established, and traceable back to his Fatal Flaws. Yeah, I really really like the direct personal antipathy they've set up between Thorin and Thranduil. It will be understandable, if tragic, why Thorin is wholly unwilling, driven even to the point of blinding rage, to even negotiate with the King who betrayed (or at least abandoned) his people and then imprisoned him and his companions for a month. Thorin won't talk to Elves, and especially Wood Elves, for a large number of quite good reasons. It won't be the hoard he's willing to go to war over - it will be his Pride. (yay, Fatal Flaws). The whole thing, both as it appears in the book and as it will most likely appear in the movie, has very much the feel of inevitable tragedy as the battle of Camlann.
A lot of the political manoeuvering in the last act has to do with the fact that Thorin has reinforcements coming in the form of Dain Ironfoot of the Iron Hills. Note these reinforcements were not willing to help with the Main Quest. That point is made in the movie far more than it is in the book. It is also heavily implied that there is a traitor who informed Azog of the movement of Our Heroes. This is more than a little worrying to me. They mentioned the Dwarves of Ered Luin and Dains people from the Iron Mountains. The traitor can't conceivably have come from among Thorin's company, and the only other named character is Dain. I can't imagine them making Dain have betrayed Thorin though - especially since he will ultimately become King Under the Mountain after Thorin falls at the Battle of Five Armies. Dain has to be a good guy, or the story gets really freakin dark - more dark than I think they want it to be. And Dain will be a good king - probably better than Thorin would have been, by and large for precisely those same reasons that made him refuse the quest in the first place. He is far more practical - he could not have undertaken nor succeeded in the Quest for Erebor, but he can ably rule a time of peace and prosperity under the Lonely Mountain. So I really don't know where they're going with this traitor plot. Especially since we already know Thorin will eventually be betrayed - by Bilbo. (And it will break his heart, especially the way they're playing it in the movie). So a secondary traitor plot seems really and truly unnecessary.
The other thing that's going to end up being surprisingly dark is what they're doing with Azog. He has apparently sworn to wipe out Durin's line - and he's going to succeed. Thorin dies, and with him his sister-sons and heirs, Fili and Kili. (To be fair, Fili and Kili might survive in the movie - killing the youngest and hottest might strike the writers as being unnecessarily cruel. But there is no way they're getting out of part III without killing Thorin. Especially not after lines like "Thorin Oakenshield, your pride will be the death of you!") So, in the book, while the failed conquest of Moria plays out more or less as seen, Azog is slain by Dain in that confrontation. It is Bolg, son of Azog, who unexpectedly turns up at the Battle of Five Armies. And Thorin falls fighting Bolg's bodyguard, to be rescued by Beorn, who then himself crushes Bolg. Which means that, in terms of defeating named Goblins, Thorin doesn't actually accomplish a whole lot. Gandalf kills the Great Goblin, Dain kills Azog, Beorn kills Bolg.
Now, this is all very unsatisfactory. Tolkien wrote in the the Monsters and the Critics that for Beowulf, the Dragon is inevitable. When you begin your career with a monster like Grendel, can you end it in mere human stupidity? (The feuds with the Hathobards and the Swedes, etc). No! For a Hero like Beowulf, no less than a Dragon will do. What else could defeat him? Now, Thorin is no Hero, but he is very much Beowulf. "Twelve warriors and their angry king" is of course a Christian reference when it appears in Beowulf (though Beowulf himself is no Christ-figure) - but when the same numerology appears in Tolkien it can only mean Beowulf. (Compare also the slave's theft of the great two-handled cup). Thorin, like Beowulf, is doomed by his pride, and by his basic humanity (dwarvity?). One might say of him as well "Thorin is a man Dwarf - for him, as for many, that is tragedy enough." So, is it acceptable to have this larger-than-life figure killed by a mere goblin? Or, in this case, rather a lot of goblins, but still. Of course, in the book, it is not supposed to be acceptable. The Battle of Five Armies leaves the nordic heroic tradition and instead showcases the brutality and pointlessness of war. We can't forget that Tolkien was at the battle of the Somme after all. "All was deadly still. There was no call and no echo of a song. Sorrow seemed to be in the air. 'Victory after all, I suppose!' he said." So yeah.
But that kind of message is not, I think, in the cultural consciousness anymore - certainly not within the genre of High Fantasy. They certainly aren't going to let Thorin fall off-screen (although I will give them major props if they let Bilbo sleep through it, as they should). And I will be greatly surprised if they do not give Thorin the Hero's Death he deserves. but in order to do that, they need a villain worthy of killing him. Even Bolg isn't quite that - a generation removed, it's not quite personal enough (also, Goblins reproducing normally raises uncomfortable mythology questions). So, enter Azog. Now, they've already set up in the movie that Thorin is simply no match for Azog. Of course, by the time we get to the Battle of Five Armies he'll be much better armed and armored. And there's nothing better than a hero who, although overwhelmed and outmatched, simply refuses to die. So Azog and Thorin will eventually duel, and Thorin will finally kill him, I suspect largely by failing to fall over after being mortally and repeatedly wounded. And then Beorn can rescue him, whatever. Because the other part of this is that, like Beowulf, like Arthur, like Hamlet, Thorin will have to get his final say (and he does rather better with it than Beowulf does, I may say: "Hey Wiglaf - I'm dying, and our people need a king. It's really good you're here - you are my kinsman, and the slayer of dragon. It will now be up to you to...go get the rest of the treasure and bring it out here so I can look at it." WTF Beowulf). Thorin's death scene is actually a lot like Hamlet's - there is one important thing he can do as king and he goes and does it. (Surprisingly, it's not seeing to the succession. I mean, Dain is right here, so it's kind of obvious at this point. And he may already have gotten that out of the way before they found Bilbo).
Oh, total aside, I noticed this for the first time today: "The others remained with Dain; for Dain dealt his treasure well." Ah, so what you mean to say is that Dain is a good ring-giver? I rather think that's what you mean to say. :D Yay, Scandinavian ideals of kingship! Yay, unnecessary Beowulf tie-ins!
From this you can see that I am perhaps overfond of Beowulf. Tolkien and I really are dorks in an awful lot of the same ways.
But getting on to the Geopolitical Ramifications, the fact that the Battle of Five Armies happens at all is kind of amazing. The story doesn't end with the killing of the Dragon. And then the Good Guys almost come to blows over... well, that's a really good question.
They're playing Thorin so magnificently that I've heard some comments about how they're going to slowly villainize him over the third part to allow the Battle of Five Armies to happen. I maintain, however, that they won't need to. In the book Thorin comes under the Dragon-spell, but in the larger context I don't think that's a terribly good idea (and wholly unnecessary). It is important, I think, that Thorin is unpossessed of the Ring of Thror. But a lot of the reason he gives for refusing Bard's parlay is the presence of the Elven-host. All that we need for things to go south, as it were, is Thorin's refusal to treat with Elves. Which is already well-established, and traceable back to his Fatal Flaws. Yeah, I really really like the direct personal antipathy they've set up between Thorin and Thranduil. It will be understandable, if tragic, why Thorin is wholly unwilling, driven even to the point of blinding rage, to even negotiate with the King who betrayed (or at least abandoned) his people and then imprisoned him and his companions for a month. Thorin won't talk to Elves, and especially Wood Elves, for a large number of quite good reasons. It won't be the hoard he's willing to go to war over - it will be his Pride. (yay, Fatal Flaws). The whole thing, both as it appears in the book and as it will most likely appear in the movie, has very much the feel of inevitable tragedy as the battle of Camlann.
A lot of the political manoeuvering in the last act has to do with the fact that Thorin has reinforcements coming in the form of Dain Ironfoot of the Iron Hills. Note these reinforcements were not willing to help with the Main Quest. That point is made in the movie far more than it is in the book. It is also heavily implied that there is a traitor who informed Azog of the movement of Our Heroes. This is more than a little worrying to me. They mentioned the Dwarves of Ered Luin and Dains people from the Iron Mountains. The traitor can't conceivably have come from among Thorin's company, and the only other named character is Dain. I can't imagine them making Dain have betrayed Thorin though - especially since he will ultimately become King Under the Mountain after Thorin falls at the Battle of Five Armies. Dain has to be a good guy, or the story gets really freakin dark - more dark than I think they want it to be. And Dain will be a good king - probably better than Thorin would have been, by and large for precisely those same reasons that made him refuse the quest in the first place. He is far more practical - he could not have undertaken nor succeeded in the Quest for Erebor, but he can ably rule a time of peace and prosperity under the Lonely Mountain. So I really don't know where they're going with this traitor plot. Especially since we already know Thorin will eventually be betrayed - by Bilbo. (And it will break his heart, especially the way they're playing it in the movie). So a secondary traitor plot seems really and truly unnecessary.
The other thing that's going to end up being surprisingly dark is what they're doing with Azog. He has apparently sworn to wipe out Durin's line - and he's going to succeed. Thorin dies, and with him his sister-sons and heirs, Fili and Kili. (To be fair, Fili and Kili might survive in the movie - killing the youngest and hottest might strike the writers as being unnecessarily cruel. But there is no way they're getting out of part III without killing Thorin. Especially not after lines like "Thorin Oakenshield, your pride will be the death of you!") So, in the book, while the failed conquest of Moria plays out more or less as seen, Azog is slain by Dain in that confrontation. It is Bolg, son of Azog, who unexpectedly turns up at the Battle of Five Armies. And Thorin falls fighting Bolg's bodyguard, to be rescued by Beorn, who then himself crushes Bolg. Which means that, in terms of defeating named Goblins, Thorin doesn't actually accomplish a whole lot. Gandalf kills the Great Goblin, Dain kills Azog, Beorn kills Bolg.
Now, this is all very unsatisfactory. Tolkien wrote in the the Monsters and the Critics that for Beowulf, the Dragon is inevitable. When you begin your career with a monster like Grendel, can you end it in mere human stupidity? (The feuds with the Hathobards and the Swedes, etc). No! For a Hero like Beowulf, no less than a Dragon will do. What else could defeat him? Now, Thorin is no Hero, but he is very much Beowulf. "Twelve warriors and their angry king" is of course a Christian reference when it appears in Beowulf (though Beowulf himself is no Christ-figure) - but when the same numerology appears in Tolkien it can only mean Beowulf. (Compare also the slave's theft of the great two-handled cup). Thorin, like Beowulf, is doomed by his pride, and by his basic humanity (dwarvity?). One might say of him as well "Thorin is a man Dwarf - for him, as for many, that is tragedy enough." So, is it acceptable to have this larger-than-life figure killed by a mere goblin? Or, in this case, rather a lot of goblins, but still. Of course, in the book, it is not supposed to be acceptable. The Battle of Five Armies leaves the nordic heroic tradition and instead showcases the brutality and pointlessness of war. We can't forget that Tolkien was at the battle of the Somme after all. "All was deadly still. There was no call and no echo of a song. Sorrow seemed to be in the air. 'Victory after all, I suppose!' he said." So yeah.
But that kind of message is not, I think, in the cultural consciousness anymore - certainly not within the genre of High Fantasy. They certainly aren't going to let Thorin fall off-screen (although I will give them major props if they let Bilbo sleep through it, as they should). And I will be greatly surprised if they do not give Thorin the Hero's Death he deserves. but in order to do that, they need a villain worthy of killing him. Even Bolg isn't quite that - a generation removed, it's not quite personal enough (also, Goblins reproducing normally raises uncomfortable mythology questions). So, enter Azog. Now, they've already set up in the movie that Thorin is simply no match for Azog. Of course, by the time we get to the Battle of Five Armies he'll be much better armed and armored. And there's nothing better than a hero who, although overwhelmed and outmatched, simply refuses to die. So Azog and Thorin will eventually duel, and Thorin will finally kill him, I suspect largely by failing to fall over after being mortally and repeatedly wounded. And then Beorn can rescue him, whatever. Because the other part of this is that, like Beowulf, like Arthur, like Hamlet, Thorin will have to get his final say (and he does rather better with it than Beowulf does, I may say: "Hey Wiglaf - I'm dying, and our people need a king. It's really good you're here - you are my kinsman, and the slayer of dragon. It will now be up to you to...go get the rest of the treasure and bring it out here so I can look at it." WTF Beowulf). Thorin's death scene is actually a lot like Hamlet's - there is one important thing he can do as king and he goes and does it. (Surprisingly, it's not seeing to the succession. I mean, Dain is right here, so it's kind of obvious at this point. And he may already have gotten that out of the way before they found Bilbo).
Oh, total aside, I noticed this for the first time today: "The others remained with Dain; for Dain dealt his treasure well." Ah, so what you mean to say is that Dain is a good ring-giver? I rather think that's what you mean to say. :D Yay, Scandinavian ideals of kingship! Yay, unnecessary Beowulf tie-ins!
From this you can see that I am perhaps overfond of Beowulf. Tolkien and I really are dorks in an awful lot of the same ways.